Hi all WikiJournal participants,
Because of an increased burden in the stage of finding and inviting peer
reviewers for submissions, we've been discussing at WikiJMed about
including funds in our next grant application to Wikimedia for hiring a
paid editor to help out in this task. It would be unfair to have it for
only WikiJMed so I take it up with all of us, also since WikiJSci currently
lacks a willing peer review coordinators
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Associate_editors#Co…>
for
the 2 most recent submissions
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Potential_upcoming_a…>.
A paid editor could look up potential peer reviewers and either invite them
directly, or prepare an email list with links to their credentials to board
members.
A paid editor would be able to help in many tedious tasks, including to
(citing Thomas' entry at WikiJMed):
- send followup emails at certain dates
- track submissions
- copyediting (for a wikijournal this could be things like image
formatting, finding who images should be attributed to, checking ref
formatting)
- formatting the final pdf upon acceptance
- managing the doi submission to crossref upon acceptance
- If having bot-experience, program bots for technical tasks such as to
keep the {{article_info}} template synchronised between main page and
subpage and add accepted articles to the relevant issue page
These tasks would not involve direct knowledge of the subject material. The
idea would be to have them handle those elements to free up time for the
medical/academic editors to focus on specialist tasks.
What do you think for WikiJSci and WikiJHum?
Best regards,
Mikael
I definitely mentioned the WikiJournal of Humanities when I was at the Leadership Bootcamp last weekend-people were interested! It also may take some time before a professor can use the journal on their tenure application. One of the other participants at the conference mentioned that since predatory journals are becoming more popular, tenure committees are more wary of new journals. Getting ISSN/DOI are good steps to improving our images a legitimate.
-Rachel
From: WikiJournal-en <wikijournal-en-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Leung
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:53 AM
To: pld(a)chem.ucla.edu; Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com>
Cc: WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com>; Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk>; WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com>; WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
In light of that recent discussion, I think we should ramp up the promotional messages like blogpost, Twitter, mailing list announcement and maybe even a Wikipedia Signpost interview to make the wider community be aware of our existence.
Andrew
Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: Paula Diaconescu <pld(a)chem.ucla.edu<mailto:pld@chem.ucla.edu>>
Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomas.shafee@gmail.com>>
Cc: Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk<mailto:R.Watson@hull.ac.uk>>, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com<mailto:andrewcleung@hotmail.com>>, WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org<mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
Hi everybody,
I understand that WikiJournal is broad, but, in my experience, what increases the reputation of a journal is a rigorous peer review system. The process does have a bit of catch-22 built in it because good reviewers don't want to take on articles from new journals, but that's where the editors need to step in and persuade reputable reviewers to take on the task. I personally am not a big fan of open identity reviewers. I think that, although one shouldn't take the scientific process personally, it is still difficult to accept criticism and it is a lot easier to make enemies if the criticisms are strong. Very few authors/reviewers are capable to not take it personally and those that unmask their identity tend not to have too many criticisms (a fact that, in itself, could question the quality of the review).
I agree that once WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE<https://publicationethics.org/membership>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science things will improve.
Paula
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomas.shafee@gmail.com>> wrote:
Good points. My position on this:
To clarify, WikiJournal material can still be integrated into Wikipedia as previously, the only thing is that it shouldn't currently be used as the sole support for a statement (particularly for articles going through internal good article or featured article review). Wikipedia can often have strict standards on what is a sufficiently reliable source, so I suspect that almost any journal with only 1 issue published would face the same scepticism at Wikipedia Reliable sources Noticeboard<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…>.
If the position is that WikiJournals don't have enough reputation yet, then that doesn't change our plans particularly to continue building a reputation. I've had a similar response when approaching some authors of "I think I'll wait until the reputation is built". Many academics (especially in person, as opposed to by email) have been enthusiastic, so it's a case of proving ourselves over the coming years.
If the position is that WikiJournals fundamentally can never have a good enough reputation then I think that's based on flawed assumptions (like we don't check reviewer identities) and can be countered. It will also be countered as WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE<https://publicationethics.org/membership>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science.
WikiJMed is currently being considered by COPE, so I propose that WikiJSci similarly apply once we have feedback from WikiJMed's experience. We can also encourage more peer reviewers to have their identities open. Our current reviewer confirmation email template<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Editorial_guidelines…> uses the phrase: "Both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews are permitted (approx 60% of our reviewers choose to have their identity open)..."
We could word to make more positive, and stating a preference for open identities like: "We believe that having reviewer identities open builds trust in the review process, however you may remain anonymous upon request"
Overall, I think that it's a useful litmus test of some Wikipedian views, but the already-intended reputation building plans should address them.
Thomas
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 05:32 Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk<mailto:R.Watson@hull.ac.uk>> wrote:
My only contribution to this - apart from astonishment at Wikipedia not considering a peer reviewed journal within its own stable as a reliable source - is that in trying to create and edit Wikipedia pages and watching mine develop as others try to add to it, is a great deal of inconsistency across pages. I note for example one colleagues page has his books listed; someone did the same for mine and this was deleted in the basis of being a 'shopping list' and replaced by a very unhelpful list of my three most cited papers. I see same editor did this to another page that I happen to be working on. On the other hand I look at the page belonging to my cousin - a Dame - and it seems if your really elevated that anything goes in terms of what can be listed.
Roger
Sent from my iPhone
Twitter: @rwatson1955
Skype: roger.watson3
Mobile: +447808480547<tel:+44%207808%20480547>
On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com<mailto:andrewcleung@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Or use the ultimate trump card: IAR (ignore all rules if it prevents you from improving Wikipedia)
Andrew
Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: Ian Alexander <iany(a)scenarioplus.org.uk<mailto:iany@scenarioplus.org.uk>>
Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org<mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>>
Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
Mikael, colleagues
The discussion seems clearly against accepting WJ as a 'reliable source'
at the moment. It is unclear to me whether joining the discussion to argue
about reviewers' anonymity and the academic status of the board would
improve matters.
I have 3 observations:
1) We may hope that in a few years' time, WJ has enough reputation that
Wikipedia will be willing to treat it as a reliable journal.
2) We are free to cut-and-paste to Wikipedia any WJ material which is
sufficiently well cited to reliable sources, which would include
peer-reviewed papers already published elsewhere by WJ authors. I note
that mathematics articles seem to require fewer citations both on
Wikipedia and in WJScience.
3) We could, I think, use material on WJ that isn't covered by citations
in the same way as material on a known scientist's blog: Wikipedia allows
'blog' postings to be cited provided it can be shown that the person
posting it is a recognised authority.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-g…
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an
established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by
reliable third-party publications.") Mikael might or might not wish to try
to confirm that on the discussion group.
Ian
> Hi all,
>
> WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
> <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines…>,
> such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
>
> There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
> Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
> research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
> additional input to this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…
>
> If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
> for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
> Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
> to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
> credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
> see how this discussion goes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mikael
>
_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list
WikiJournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJM board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjmboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5C…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5C…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJH board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjhboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjhboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA9…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA9…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
AgriBio & La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science | Postdoctoral research fellow
Profiles at ResearchGate<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Shafee> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/T-Shafee> | GScholar<http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=m6Qd3zIAAAAJ> | AltMetric<https://www.altmetric.com/explorer/report/9048e6b2-9f82-49b4-b786-2d5674080…> | Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evolution_and_evolvability>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJS board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjsboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjsboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hello Camelia,
I apologize as well, for the long time it took to reach back to you. Here
is a description of how WikiJournal fulfills each of the mentioned criteria:
*Legal structure*:
- The project is governed by the WikiJournal Council
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group#WikiJournal_Council>
- It has adopted its own Bylaws <http://WikiJournal_User_Group/Bylaws>.
- It is a registered non-profit organization (in Sweden, Organization#:
802511-9275
<https://www.hitta.se/f%C3%B6retagsinformation/wikijournal/8025119275?gp=58.…>
).
Records of activities are archived in its online discussion forums, mainly:
- Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Humanities
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Humanities>
The editorial boards and associate editors have expertise in each area:
- WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors>
- WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors>
- WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Editors>
Their expertise is shared with the Wikimedia movement, in the form of
processing and approving article submissions, whose content can be used to
improve articles across Wikimedia projects.
*Wikimedia supportive mission: *The *mission* of WikiJournal is to publish
scholarly works with no cost for the authors, apply quality checks on
submissions by expert peer review, and make accepted works available on the
Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. The material is then integrated
where appropriate across Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. WikJournals
is open for everyone to contribute. All this is in alignment with that of
Wikimedia.
*Thematic focus: *Scholarly journals that apply academic peer review
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Peer_review> to their content.
*Critical mass of active Wikimedia contributor involvement: *50+
total members in the editorial boards, in addition to authors and peer
reviewers (see links to editors above)
*At least two years of activities: *The project has been a User Group since
May 31, 2016: Affiliations Committee/Resolutions/Recognition WikiJournal
User Group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognit…>
Its reports on activity and financials are up to date, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Activity_report_May_
2016_to_Dec_2017
*Capacity, or planned capacity, to meet the future expectations: *We are a
dedicated group of volunteers who will continue to welcome newcomers to the
projects. There is no absolute limit to the potential capacity of our
activities. We understand and will abide the requirements and expectations
of thematic organizations
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations/Requiremen…>
.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström
On behalf of the WikiJournal User Group
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:23 PM, camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Mikael.
>
> I appologize for my previous answer, a misunderstanding about the fact you
> are already a user group.
> In order to become a thematical organization (like chapters
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_chapters>, they
> are required *to have a legal structure*, maintain detailed records on
> activities, maintain an expertise in their focal area, and share that
> expertise with the Wikimedia movement), these are the
> eligibility requirements
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>:
>
> 1. *Wikimedia supportive mission*
> The mission of the organization must be in line with the mission
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Mission> and vision
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Vision> of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the guiding principles of the
> Wikimedia Foundation
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin…>
> and principles of movement affiliates
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_affiliation_mo…>
> .
> 2. *Thematic focus*
> The thematic organization has a clear cultural, linguistic, or
> otherwise thematic focus. Thematic organizations need a clearly defined and
> unique scope, when setting up a thematic organization questions of
> language, geographic area of operation, and membership criteria need to be
> determined. While there can be multiple user groups serving a similar or
> single focus area, there can only be one thematic organization covering
> their designated thematic focus area.
> 3. *Legal structure*
> The thematic organization must have a legal structure/corporation that
> is legally independent from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> 4. *Critical mass of active Wikimedia contributor involvement*
> The thematic organization must involve at least ten, preferably at
> least twenty, active contributors to the Wikimedia projects. An active
> contributor is defined as a members with 300 or more contributions to a
> Wikimedia project on a registered account that has existed for more than 6
> months in good community standing (meaning they are not currently suspended
> or otherwise prevented from participating).
> 5. *At least two years of activities*
> Groups must have two years of demonstrable programmatic results prior
> to applying for thematic organization recognition. These activities, and
> their results, must be documented on-wiki, ideally on the group's Meta-Wiki
> page. Activities should be a mixture of online and offline activities
> designed to encourage participation on the Wikimedia projects
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_projects>.
> The group must be up to date on its activity and financial reports prior to
> being considered for recognition.
> 6. *Capacity, or planned capacity, to meet the future expectations*
> Something that makes thematic organizations and chapters unique from
> user groups are the increased expectations. Does your group have the
> capacity to meet the expectations of thematic organization once you receive
> recognition? This will be something both the Affiliations Committee and
> Board of Trustees will consider in reviewing your application. If your
> group does not have a track record of activities which indicate that you
> will successfully be able to meet these expectations, that can cause your
> application to be denied. Consideration will be given for the financial
> circumstances of the group, realistic demands in your group's focus area,
> and plans to secure future funding to meet these expectations.
>
>
> Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.
>
> Kind regards,
> Camelia on behalf of AffCom
>
>
> ᐧ
>
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
> *Affiliations Committee Member - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Developer | WikiDonne co-founder
> T. +39 0669362474 | M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.boban(a)gmail.com
> *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
> *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122> **|* *Aissa
> Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-04-02 21:47 GMT+02:00 camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello Mikael and thank you for contacting us.
>>
>> As to apply for a thematic organization, your group must have a thematic
>> focus, a legal structure, but most of all at least two years of activity
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations/Requiremen…>,
>> I suggest you to apply first for a user group. The eligibility requirements
>> are (1) a group of a*t least 3 members with 300 or more contributions to
>> a Wikimedia project *and (2) *accept **the Wikimedia user group
>> agreement and code of conduct
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Agreement_and_code_of…>.*
>>
>> On this page you can find the way to apply for the recognition
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups> and this is a creation
>> guide
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Creation_guide>.
>> After completing this 4 steps:
>> *Step 1*: Gather the people
>>
>> At least three people are required for the establishment of a user group;
>> but we recommend gathering at least 10 in your group.
>>
>> We highly encourage you to feel empowered to engage in activities and
>> planning even prior to beginning the approval process.
>>
>>
>> *Step 2*: Develop your goals and scope
>>
>> - What do you want to accomplish as a group? What is your scope? For
>> example, do you want to have a monthly meetup on a particular topic, do you
>> want to reach out to schools, to museums? How does your mission aim to
>> improve Wikimedia projects?
>> - What kind of activities do you want to engage in (e.g. outreach,
>> fundraising, public relations, publishing, meetups)?
>>
>>
>> *Step 3*: Select your user group name
>>
>> Generally, creative and descriptive names are encouraged; however, here
>> are a few examples that might help your thinking:
>>
>> A user group's name and logo should support more independent activity and
>> discourage confusion with other Wikimedia organizations.
>>
>>
>> - Wikimedia Community User Group _____ : An independent club of
>> Wikimedia volunteers
>> - Wikimedians of _____ User Group : an independent group of
>> volunteer Wikimedians
>> - Wikipedians of _____ User Group : an independent group of
>> volunteer Wikimedians
>> - MediaWiki Group _____ : an independent group of volunteer
>> Wikimedians
>> - Wikipedia Editors for _____ : an independent group of volunteer
>> Wikimedians
>> - Any name that does not involve a Wikimedia trademark, such as
>> "Wiki User Group _____"
>>
>>
>> *Step 4*: Set up a wiki page for your group
>>
>> Once you have a group of interested people, it's time to document who you
>> are and to set up some means of communications. For the external world, you
>> need to designate two contact people who can be identified to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation; within the group, think about setting up a wiki page where
>> people can join; perhaps set up a mailing list or talk page or other forum
>> to discuss your projects.
>>
>> at *Step 5*: You can Apply for recognition filling this form
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contact/affcomusergroup>.
>>
>> Please feel free to contact us if you have other questions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Camelia on behalf of AffCom
>>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Camelia Boban*
>> *Affiliations Committee Member - **Wikimedia *Foundation
>> Developer | WikiDonne co-founder
>> T. +39 0669362474 | M. +39 3383385545
>> camelia.boban(a)gmail.com
>> *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
>> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
>> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
>> *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122> **|* *Aissa
>> Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-04-02 19:44 GMT+02:00 Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org
>> >:
>>
>>> Dear Affiliations Committee,
>>>
>>> I want to apply to have WikiJournal
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> become a thematic
>>> organization
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>.
>>> Please let me know what information you will need in order to make a
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mikael Häggström
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikael_H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m>
>>> editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Affiliations Committee mailing list
>>> AffCom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Hi all,
WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines…>,
such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
additional input to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…
If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
see how this discussion goes.
Best regards,
Mikael